No. 2–3, 2003–2004] LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL 427 LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL ETHNIC ENCOUNTER AND THE CHALLENGE OF A JEWISH STATE Elimelech Westreich* Abstract The article examines the approach of leading rabbis toward levirate marriages following the establishment of the State of Israel. Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Herzog supported the abolishment of levirate marriages and attempted to impose on all ethnic communities the Ashkenazi approach, which since the 13th century favored chalitza. Chief Sephardic Rabbi Uziel supported rabbi Herzog although the levirate commandment takes precedence over chalitza in the Sephardic and oriental traditions and is practiced in these communities. In 1950, the two Chief Rabbis led a council of rabbis that enacted a regulation rejecting levirate marriages and favoring chalitza. Rabbi Uziel believed that two opposing traditions governing an issue as central as family law are not appropriate in a modern state. He perceived the levirate marriage, which binds women in matrimonial relations against their will, to be inconsistent with their status in the modern era. The strong roots of the Ashkenazi Halachic tradition, which has for many generations rejected levirate marriages, allowed him to demand that all ethnic groups adopt it. Rabbi Yossef and other oriental critics regard his actions as submissive to Ashkenazi tradition, a criticism I reject. Rabbi Yossef vigorously opposed the abolition of levirate marriages, and in a decision in 1951 he claimed that it was invalid. It was the beginning of his struggle against what he perceived as Ashkenazi dominance and Sephardic submission, demanding the * 428 ISRAEL LAW REVIEW [Is.L.R. Vol. 37 restoration of the oriental and Sephardic traditions. In time, this became an explicit ideological-political stance under the motto leachzir atara le’yoshna. I suggest that Rabbi Yossef endeavors to restore the golden age of the Bashi sages in Jerusalem, chief among them Rabbi Elyashar, at the twilight of the Ottoman period. I. Introduction This study examines levirate marriages as they are treated in official rabbinical judicial systems in Israel and, particularly the manner in which judicial traditions of various ethnic groups, represented by their leading rabbis, coped with the intensive encounter between the traditions that took place in Israel, and how they reacted to the various challenges involving the establishment of the State of Israel. The levirate marriage, a Halachic subject in the area of family law, is still the object of unresolved controversy between the various ethnic groups. In Biblical law, a matrimonial relationship is established between a widow whose husband died without having had children and the brother of the deceased who is obligated to marry her. This is the levirate act. If the brother-in-law refuses to perform the levirate commandment, he is obligated to sever the matrimonial connection between himself and the widow by a ceremony called chalitza. The legal bases of the levirate marriage and of chalitza were laid in the Mishnah and the Talmud, and the fundamental controversy whether it is the levirate commandment or chalitza that takes precedence, which has significant legal implications, goes back to these earliest times. Over the years the practice evolved in a manner characteristic of the Halacha, splitting along the ethnic lines of various judicial traditions. In general, it can be said that the Ashkenazi tradition was most considerate of women, the oriental tradition was least so, and the Sephardic somewhere in the middle. Since the 1840s, the various ethnic groups have had intensive and growing interactions with each other in the Land of Israel, while the power balance between them continually changing. The process culminated shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, with the return of hundreds of thousands of Jews from No. 2–3, 2003–2004] LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL 429 Ashkenazi communities that have been destroyed in the Holocaust, hundreds of thousands of Jews from ancient and intact communities from the east, from the Maghreb (the “West”), and from the Balkans. The rabbinical system, which had jurisdiction over family matters, had to cope with the multiplicity and variety of traditions that were not suited for a legal system in a modern state, and with the fact that in some of the traditions the extent of harm to women was particularly high. The establishment of the state was a significant turning point. In 1950, the Sephardic tradition, under the leadership of Rabbi Uziel, joined the Ashkenazi tradition led by Rabbi Herzog, and together they enacted within the framework of the Chief Rabbinical Council a set of regulations known as “The Jerusalem Ban.” As part of this legislation, the Ashkenazi model regarding levirate marriages was imposed on members of all the communities in Israel. The negative reactions were quick to follow. A young and at the time anonymous sage, Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, marked the beginning of the opposition by displaying unqualified loyalty to the oriental tradition. In a verdict given in the Rabbinical Court of Petach Tikva, to be discussed later in detail, he severely criticized Rabbi Uziel for his regard for considerations of national character; in the process, Rabbi Yossef dropped heavy hints about Rabbi Uziel’s subservience to the Ashkenazi tradition and self-disparagement before it. Eventually, when Rabbi Yossef achieved a position of power as Chief Rabbi and Chief of the Rabbinical Courts in Tel Aviv, and finally as Chief Rabbi of Israel and the President of the great Rabbinical Courts of Appeals, he began applying his views and reviving the old tradition under the motto of leachzir atara le’yoshna, in other words, restoring the authority of oriental and Sephardic Jewish tradition in Halachic matters to its original status before its subordination to Ashkenazi tradition. The object of this study is the Halachic work of leading figures in the rabbinical courts. The Rabbis carried out this work with total commitment to the various accepted Halachic methods of inquiry and deduction, and never outside them. The heart of the Halachic method is the basic assumption that old sources do not become obviated, on the contrary – they are held in higher regard than later sources. Therefore, the Halachic method accumulates all its previous layers, and contrary to what is customary in modern secular legal systems, it does not reject the old on 430 ISRAEL LAW REVIEW [Is.L.R. Vol. 37 favor of the new. Although full compliance with this requirement is almost impossible in practical terms, with the exception of sages of extraordinary ability, like Rabbi Yossef, Halacha sages are committed to all the sources and endeavor to achieve this type of inclusion, so that collectively they do accomplish an almost complete coverage of all the layers and periods. It follows that any scholarly study of contemporary Halacha sages cannot limit itself to whatever is explicitly stated by them but must also account for the layers that served as their foundation and source. Assembling all the Halachic sources that preceded the rulings of rabbis since the establishment of the State of Israel as an integral part of this study would be practically impossible within the scope of a single article. Indeed, this study is possible only in the wake of several others dealing with levirate marriages in various places and at different times, and investigating the related community aspects in particular. The present study differs from previous ones discussing levirate marriages in rabbinical rulings in the State of Israel precisely by being able to absorb and draw on these studies. The first to research this topic was B.Z. Eliash,1 who explored the effects of the encounter between different communities on rabbinical rulings in Israel in several areas, including levirate marriages. In this, as in other matters, he discussed the various decisions of Israeli rabbis but did not examine the layers of Halacha that preceded these rulings and were related to them. Nor did he distinguish in any way between Sephardic and oriental traditions, and limited himself to a most general distinction between the Ashkenazi tradition and the group of all the non-Ashkenazi traditions. According to Eliash, disagreements between rabbis in the area of family law, including levirate marriages, can be explained in light of the struggle between the melting pot outlook that was dominant in Israel in its early days and the preservation of ethnic uniqueness championed by Rabbi Yossef. In his view, a similar phenomenon was taking place in the US at the same time and served as the source of inspiration for the Israeli one. This argument is clearly outside the Halacha, suited for the type of scientific inquiry that is foreign to the rabbinical-Halachic discussion. 1 Ben Zion Eliash, “Ethnic Pluralism or Melting Pot” (1983) 18 Is.L.R. 348. No. 2–3, 2003–2004] LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL 431 A more comprehensive view is presented in Rabbi Arusy’s dissertation2 on the ethnic aspects of rabbinical rulings in Israel. Rabbi Arusy addressed the issue of levirate marriages in some detail as part of his argument with Eliash and criticism of some of his statements. Unlike Eliash, Arusy appears to be completely immersed in the Halachic discussion and all his arguments belong to this intellectual framework. For example, he does not examine any argument that is outside the Halacha, not even the melting pot argument put forward by Eliash, but repeats again and again Rabbi Yossef’s claim about the Ashkenazi takeover and Rabbi Uziel’s submissiveness. The discussion about the Halacha sources that served the polemicizing rabbis is conducted according to the rabbinical method and lacking the qualities of scientific research such as an examination of the sources according to the circumstances of time and place.